Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures (fwd)

Anthony Borla ajborla at bigpond.com
Sun Feb 12 14:04:00 PST 2006


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Moffat" <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com>
To: <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures (fwd)

Ken

>
> Whoops, dropped the list off the Cc.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:06:37 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Ken Moffat <ken at linuxfromscratch.org>
> To: Anthony Borla <ajborla at bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Anthony Borla wrote:
>
> >> I wondered about the visibility tests when I saw the number of
> >> failures.  Yes, I've seen this, but I think it was on ppc64 multilib
> >> clfs!  The good news is that the basic system worked ok, as if the
> >> failure might be in the test code.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks, Ken - that's the sort of reassurance I was definitely after :) !
>
> Since you most definitely aren't on ppc64, I would regard it
> as "well, it might work".  Of course, pretending to be on a 486
> isn't particularly common, so maybe that is the trigger.
>

Yes, specifying the build type as 'i486' when it is actually an 'i686'
would, I'm sure, be definitely classed as unusual. The reason I started to
do so was to ensure the generated code would run on an i486, particularly
after seeing repeated warnings from many configure scripts about setting the
'build' option.

I admit this decision was not based on a complete understanding of the
impact of the 'build' option [I'm a little new to the gcc-based
cross-compiling game], but was motivated simply by a desire to do everything
seemingly possible to ensure i486 code is generated [*]. Given the upward
compatibility of x86 CPU's it seemed a relatively benign, though perhaps,
ultimately misguided, action to take.

I've come this far with it, so I'll continue using it, and see where it
ultimately leads. If need be, I can always go back and rebuild. The beauty
of LFS is that, unlike activities like skydiving or basejumping, you can
always go back and start again if you make a mistake, or otherwise take a
wrong turn ;) !

>
> I did wonder if a recent kernel might be involved (I had to used
> 2.6.15-rc or newer on my ppc64, despite the warnings that udev
> ought to be upgraded), but apparently not.
>

I like relatively recent, but generally avoid bleeding edge, software,
especially critical software like a kernel.

Cheers,

Anthony Borla

[*] I've experienced considerable difficulty [not to mention wasted a lot of
time] getting newish RedHat Linux distributions running on a i486 platform,
so am determined that my LFS [and later BLFS] efforts will succeed.




More information about the lfs-support mailing list